Lawsuit: Dismissed xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade v. Department of Justice [2021] FCR 78

[nnmc]

xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade (The Lovely Law Firm Representing) v. Department of Justice

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade (The Lovely Law Firm Representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

--------------------------------------------

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiffs complain against the Defendant as follows: The plaintiffs were walking together when suddenly they were attacked by Dwerpy. In self-defence, the plaintiffs killed Dwerpy. Dwerpy then returned to the scene, and then killed the plaintiffs. Dwerpy then sent screenshots to Trainee Officer Alexthelillion. These screenshots were misleading in nature because they did not show that the plaintiffs were acting in self-defence. Dwerpy then used the screenshots to claim that the plaintiffs had committed the crime of murder. This convinced Alexthelillion to arrest and jail the plaintiffs for the crime of murder. The plaintiffs were sentenced to jail for 10 minutes each.

The issue at hand is that Trainee Officer Alexthelillion committed the crime of police misconduct. Dwerpy was the initial aggressor who committed the initial assault, so the plaintiffs then acted in self-defense by killing Dwerpy. Dwerpy then returned for revenge, and killed both of the plaintiffs. The issue is that the Trainee Officer failed to issue the punishments that are specifically outlined by the law. Dwerpy committed the crime of assault, if not murder, but the Trainee Officer did not issue any punishment at all against Dwerpy. The law specifically outlines that assault, attempted murder, and murder are all to be punished with a fine and jail time. On the other hand, the plaintiffs acted in self-defense in response to Dwerpy's aggressions. Even though citizens have the right to kill in self-defense, the Trainee Officer arrested and jailed the plaintiffs for committing the crimes of murder.

This shows that the Trainee Officer committed the crime of police misconduct, by issuing punishments that are inconsistent with the punishments specifically outlined by the law. The Trainee Officer overpunished the plaintiffs and underpunished Dwerpy.

-------------------------------------------

I. PARTIES
1. xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade (Plaintiffs)
2. Alexthelillion (Trainee Officer accused of misconduct)
3. Dwerpy (Witness)

-------------------------------------------

II. FACTS

1. Plaintiffs xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade were walking down the street when Dwerpy attacked them out of nowhere.
2. In self defense, the plaintiffs (xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade) fought back against Dwerpy and killed Dwerpy. However, Dwerpy later returns and kills both xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade for revenge.
3. Dwerpy took screenshots of when xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade acted in self defense and use it to accuse them of murder. Dwerpy presented this evidence to Trainee Officer Alexthelillion.
4. This led to Alexthelillion arresting the plaintiffs for the crime of murder.
5. Both plaintiffs served 10 minutes of jail time for the crime of murder, even though the plaintiffs killed in self-defense.
6. Dwerpy was the one who committed the initial assault and was the aggressor. Despite that, Dwerpy was not arrested or jailed.
7. Trainee Officer Alexthelillion did not ask for the plaintiffs' side of the story. The Trainee Officer solely relied on Dwerpy's story.

-------------------------------------------

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The facts show that xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade were attacked first and only killed in self-defense, and the right to self-defense is a right granted by common law. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not break the law.
2. Dwerpy was the person who initially attacked the plaintiffs, and Dwerpy did eventually murder both of the plaintiffs. This means that Dwerpy committed the crime of murder twice as well as the crime of assault.
3. Law 15.18, established by the "Protection of the Public Act", is about the crime of police misconduct. This law states that a police officer is guilty of the crime of police misconduct, if the officer issues "punishments that conflict with the punishments specifically outlined" by the law. This crime is punishable by "a fine of at least $500 and at most $10,000".
4. Laws 13.1, 13.4, and 13.5 are about the crimes of assault, attempted murder, and murder, respectively. Dwerpy murdered the plaintiffs and could plausibly be charged with murder, but at the very very least, Dwerpy should be charged with assault. Even in the situation where Dwerpy is charged with assault (the least serious crime of the bunch), Law 13.1 says that assault, even on the first offense, should be punished with a fine of $20 and 5 minutes of jail time. Law 13.1, and especially Laws 13.4 and 13.5, do not allow no punishment as sufficient punishment.
5. Trainee Officer Alexthelillion violated Law 15.18 and committed twice the crime of police misconduct. This is because the Trainee Officer issued no punishment to Dwerpy, despite the laws specifically outlining that Dwerpy should have been punished with a fine and jail time for the crimes Dwerpy committed. That is the definition of police misconduct, and the Trainee Officer is guilty of it. Furthermore, the Trainee Officer jailed the plaintiffs for killing Dwerpy in self-defense, which does not count as the crime of murder and so no punishment should have been issued. Thus, the Trainee Officer's punishment against the plaintiffs goes against what is specifically outlined by the law, meaning the crime of police misconduct was again committed.

-------------------------------------------

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiffs seek the following from the Defendant:
1. The Trainee Officer committed police misconduct in a particularly outrageous way. The Trainee Officer failed to arrest and punish the true criminal, and instead the Trainee Officer arrested and punished the innocent plaintiffs. That is very damaging to the rule of law and will embolden other criminals.
2. Thus, we are seeking $10,000, to be paid by the DOJ. This is $5,000 per offense of police misconduct, and there were 2 offenses.
3. We also are seeking the expungement of the arrests and jail sentences of the plaintiffs, since that punishment was issued in contradiction of the guidelines of the law.

-------------------------------------------

Image 1: Shows Dwerpy shooting an arrow at Plaintiff LTSlade. The arrow can be seen in the body of LTSlade as he dies. A bow can also be seen in the hand of Dwerpy. This image is on the attached link to a Google Doc.

Image 2: At the bottom left of the screen, it is evident that Dwerpy also killed xxTigOlBittiesxx. This image is on the attached link to a Google Doc.

Image 3: Proof that The Lovely Law Firm was hired by the plaintiffs. This image is attached as a file to this post.

IMAGES 1 & 2: Evidence Pictures
-------------------------------------------

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.


DATED: The 6th of July 2021

 

[nnmc]

The Lovely Law Firm, on behalf of our clients the plaintiffs, would like to request that the Federal Court issue a subpoena to the DOJ for the criminal record of Dwerpy. We request the criminal record of Dwerpy because we would like to present it to the court as proof that Dwerpy was never arrested and jailed for the crimes Dwerpy committed against the Plaintiffs.

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of
xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade (The Lovely Law Firm representing) v. Department of Justice
Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.​

 

[GoodMorning9]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


MOTION TO DISMISS



xxTigOlBittiesxx and LTSlade (The Lovely Law Firm representing)


Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice


Defendant


MOTION TO DISMISS


Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:


1. The Plaintiffs made a claim that Dwerpy killed the plaintiffs in Self-defense, however, this claim was never supported by any evidence, witness testimony, etc.

2. The plaintiffs made a claim that Dwerpy showed misleading screenshots to an officer and never provided any evidence to support the claim

3. The plaintiffs made the frivolous claim that they should be awarded $10,000 the maximum punishment for police misconduct, despite the fact that even if in some way the police officer in question committed some kind of misconduct, (which they did not), it would be ridiculous to ask for 10,000$ to compensate for this due to this being a very basic case and the fact that precedent in very similar cases shows that the plaintiff should not be awarded anywhere near the amount requested

4. The plaintiffs only presented 2 pieces of evidence in this case and neither of them support the claims made by the plaintiff of a self defense kill, and then that dwerpy returned to the scene to kill the plaintiffs. There is no evidence showing that for example Dwerpy just killed the plaintiffs in a consented kill on another day. Without an officer asking for consent or an arrest, there is no evidence an uncontested kill even happened.

5. The Plaintiffs are severely misinterpreting the meaning of the Protection of the public act, The Act states that “Any officer found guilty in court to be issuing punishments that conflict with the punishments specifically outlined is to have committed police misconduct”. This is to say that any Police officer who makes up crimes or arrests someone for a crime that is not deemed illegal by the law, is guilty of police misconduct. The Plaintiffs are asking for compensation under a law that does not define police misconduct in the way the plaintiffs understand it to. The plaintiffs are alleging they were arrested for murder, which is actually illegal. Therefore, it would be unfair for the courts to charge the Department of Justice under that law.

6. In addition to the misinterpretation by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are asking for the courts to fine the department of Justice when the law in question says “The punishment for Police Misconduct shall be a fine of at least $500 and at most $10,000, jail time of at most 30 minutes, and the offending officer may be stripped of their officer position and be temporarily or permanently barred from serving as an officer in the future, at the court’s discretion.” The law is clearly intended to punish officers, not the department of justice for this misconduct. This is clear because the law mentions jail time, and a department cannot be jailed. Therefore it is unfair for the plaintiffs to ask the court to fine the department of Justice for this amount, even if misconduct occurred (Which it didn’t)

7.In conclusion, the plaintiffs have provided no significant evidence to support their claims of wrongful arrest, and are basically asking the court to give them money based on pure speculation. In addition, the law that the plaintiffs referenced as a basis for a fine, is completely irrelevant in this case, Therefore we would like to request that this case be dismissed.


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.



DATED: This 16th of July 2021

 

[Milkcrack]

Verdict

It's the opinion of the court that the defendant is right in that the law "Police misconduct" is not applicable here as the officer in question did not deviate from the punishment outlined in the law. The defendant is also right in that the Department of Justice is not directly liable for the police misconduct itself unless it involves a lack of training or giving wrong instructions. That is why I am granting the motion to dismiss. However, if the plaintiff has evidence for the self-defence they may still file an appeal request in a district court for their murder charge.

 

[Milkcrack]

I noticed In your appeal the case didn't have a number yet, it's fixed now*